Zeiss Ikon Tenax test shots

[truls]

Here are som test shots taken with the zeiss Ikon Tenax. It has a Novar Anastigmat lens, I believe it is a triplet. The quality is not from 2012, but it takes pictures.

Here is my friend the "light meter":


A picture from the grocery store down the road:


An old church nearby:


Against the light is not good at all:


Pictures are straight from the scanner (my scanner is not very high quality). Fomapan 400 film, Fomadon R09.

[hansz]

The Novar is a triplet indeed; bought by the Zeiss Ikon company at Rodenstock or Steinheil.
At the time Zeiss Ikon tendered a design at several companies, including its parent company, Carl Zeiss. Depending on the cost constraints it bought at different companies.

Nice pictures, you're living in a picturesque environment!

Hans.

[pentaxgraflex]

Well, is there any truth to the stated fact that if the Novar has a Zeiss serial number it was made by them?
I ask because I have a front cell focusing 70mm F/3.5 Novar in Compur Rapid that has a Zeiss serial number from 1932. What is your opinion Hansz.

[Berndt]

Very grainy film.

[mickeyobe]

truls,

I wonder what kind of results your 'lightmeter' would give shooting the same pictures under the same lighting conditions and using the same film and processing.

Mickey (A curious Tenax owner)

[Peltigera]

Those are very similar to the results from my Tenax I. My Tenax has a visibly 'milky' front element to the lens. I am not sure if this is in the glass or on the rear surface - it certainly will not clean off. The rear element of the lens looks to be fine.

I am currently trying some Kodak Plus X film in it which I will process for extra contrast. I think shall have to accept that this is not a User camera but I do really like using it. It is the easiest camera to use that I have (apart from the fully automatic ones, that is).

[hansz]

I will try to recall the Novar story when I get home...
Hans

[Stephen]

The Novar was a three element design by Zeiss, but the lens production was spread amongst the other German lens makers, rather than being made in house. The specification was very strict and the other makers had to make to the Zeiss standards. It was widely used on 120 roll film cameras and 35mm compacts, as it was simple to mount and collimate the lens, a bit less expensive than a Tessar option.

With the difficult political situation and industrial turmoil in Germany in the late 20's and early 30's all the main optical companies were ordered by Berlin industrial ministries to work together, even if not actually amalgamated in the Zeiss grouping.

The Tenax lenses are shorter focal lengths with the smaller negatives, more suffer from milky glass, etc, than other Novars.

Those test negs are indeed a bit grainy, even for Fomopan 400, I suspect the dilution of the developer is a bit strong, or the temperature a touch high.

Most of the Zeiss Tenax cameras will deliver a good neg, the lens has little to go wrong with it apart from fungus and over cleaning.

Stephen.

[truls]

It might be that the development not was done at the best. I can upload some more images doing a new test. I know many readers comes to this site from search engines, and it is always interesting looking at images taken with old cameras.

The Fomapan 400 film is sort of grainy, also when used with Fomadon R09 which I believe is Rodinal formula. Normally the grain is not so prominent. Most of the time is has high sharpness and a great tonal range.

[hansz]

The term Novar was first used by the ICA company and were numbered. You can find them at least until 1927 also on Zeiss Ikon cameras after the merger.
Late pre-war and post-war Novars are trademarks of the Zeiss Ikon Company, not from Carl Zeiss. Mostly they were bought from Steinheil or Rodenstock to be used in a more cost-concious design.
The DDR branch of Zeiss Ikon lost its right to use the Novar trademark during the legal battles of the fifties and the homophonic 'Novonar' was adopted.

Although 'only' a triplet can produce fine results; I like them most in the Ikoflex line.

Hans

[Stephen]

There's nothing wrong with a good triplet lens, especially on a 2 1/4 negative, I think the issues were confined to using short focal lengths. use with 30x30 and half frames etc., the front radius is quite small, and they are more difficult to grind.

I believe that the Schneider Radionar was a Novar formulae, the name appears on Adox 6x9 cameras of the early 1950's.

Yes, the Foma developer is Rodinol type, and it increases accutance and sharpness, ...and gritty grain! especially if used far too weak, and too strong or hot, where grain really gets worse. Try more dilution than last time and make sure the temperature is spot on, or a touch low. Rodinal is easy going as long as not to strong. Over weak and very long development times only seemed to work with Kodak technical pan, Tri-x went very grainy.

Generally on small format I found 200 ASA max film helps, and use a more standard developer like D-76 type, slightly weak solution, slightly longer to compensate. FP-4 is good with half frame, and will suit the Tenax.

A Tenax should give better general shots than the samples so far, the lens may need a good internal clean and careful re-collimation, this increases contrast, enabling shorter exposure times and no need to compensate for low contrast in the processing. I have a Tenax stored away, I'll get it out and do some shots to compare.
Stephen.

[Stephen]

A quick test photograph with piece of cut B/W film, FP-4 in D-76, with the Zeiss Tenax, the 35mm 3.5 Novar lens, which is clean and fungus free. The digital scan masks things a bit, but very little grain, and good sharpness in very dull over cast conditions outside



Stephen.

[truls]

Just for the record...
I took some new images with Tenax camera, and also with the "light meter" as a comparison.

Film Fomapan 400 in both cameras, developed 68F (20 degrees) in same developing tank at the same time.

The church (Tenax):


The church (lightmeter):


Towards the sun (Tenax):


Towards the sun (light meter):


The grocery store (Tenax):


I think the sharpness is OK, but as Stephen explain the lens needs a good clean, and also a different film/developer. I also believe the shutter on the Tenax is somewhat slower than normal, annd needs some service. The "light meter" is Leica Elmarit 3-cam 35mm/2.8 from 1968, and is not very good against the sun... My Canon FD 35/2.8 is much better than the Leica lens.

[mickeyobe]

Tenax I vs Leica.

"The old apples and oranges trick" as Maxwell Smart would say.

[truls]

Oct 5, 2012 8:51:05 GMT -5 mickeyobe said:

Tenax I vs Leica.

"The old apples and oranges trick" as Maxwell Smart would say.

The Tenax I vs Leica is not a fair comparison. Someone requested these pictures

I dont want to start a war, but the quality of Leica lenses are a bit mysterious. If we present some pictures most people would have a hard time judging which pictures are taken with Nikkor, Canon or Leica lens.